Search

It was well received in large when it was signed into law by President Ronald Regan in 1986. The need, benefits, and issues brought about that. The only negative was the potential to cheap the system and steal from hospitals by those who are able to pay but don’t. This issue is not really a major issue because patients still get billed and there are still repercussions for not paying bills but if the need for urgent care is real it could save your life; however about 6% of hospital services are never paid for, thus not completely an unreal threat.

The majority of the facts originated from MSF (also known as Doctors Without Borders) essays/studies/experiences as well as several other outside works as cited.

The Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act (EMTALA) goal is to guarantee everyone access to emergency care at hospitals (Medicare, Health & Human Services, or CMS participating ones) regardless of ability for the patient to pay for the services or not. This was aimed to open up equal access to critical treatment regardless of class, social standing, or wealth.

Those that cannot pay for healthcare services (or are suspected to not be able to) are the most vulnerable population as they can literally die because of their social standing getting in the way of care and treatment. 

1) “‘A confusion between humanitarianism and politics–two fundamentally different orders of activity – can only lead to a mutual weakening of both”.

2) “Approaching gender-based violence as a medical or health issue alters how violence is both approached and understood; that is, rather than understanding gender violence in the context of gendered relations of power, or as part of larger histories and expressions of inequality which are inseparable from histories of class or race or colonialism, this type of medicalisation transforms gender-based violence into an emergency illness, requiring immediate intervention.”

3) “Sexual violence elicited a particular form of moral outrage in the MSF report and debate; and the question was how to justify the willingness to condemn the perpetrators in cases of rape more than with other forms of violence or torture. Should women be !C 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Medicalising and Politicising Sexual Violence 259 treated as special categories of victim, who need more protection? Furthermore, are they the only ones recognised as subject to rape? Should sex and sexual violence be seen as crimes apart, or should they be equivalent to any type of harm or injury in times of war? What is the nature of gender-based violence, and how do we qualify the particular vulnerabilities to it?”

1) Gender violence against humanitarian workers.

2) Gender violence that exists within the humanitarian organizations themselves.

3) How gender violence is interpreted and perceived by different cultures. 

It matters to public health greatly because without it, hospitals could refuse to provide critical treatment until they were satisfied that the patient could pay, which can result in death from delay or refusal of care.

1) International courts came to agreement that gender based acts of violence, such as rape, constitute a crime against humanity.

2)  When gender is erased from the picture it removes the why, what, and how of the incident as well as ting to be uniform in care but also recognizing biological differences between men and women, gender differences and how that changes treatment, care, and outcome.

3) Human rights activists have been championing to address violence against women since the 1980s which later turned into “gender based violence” so that it would broaden the scope to include any gender. 

The majority of citations are attributed to MSF and other humanitarian organizations. This incite frames the viewpoint from which this article was made.

While most hospitals would provide stabilizing, lifesaving treatment to those that needed it, there were some that did not. This act really helps the good hospitals (the majority of them) that were already doing what this policy made law, but there were enough instances and examples of hospitals that were not, so the legislature acted. It is also important to note that this act was part of a larger bill (COBRA) that dealt with national healthcare and social security policy.